Tweets of the Week

Unity message to the government from Australia's papers #mediawatch #rightoknow pic.twitter.com/wuE9ZyGjQx

— Media Watch (@ABCmediawatch) October 20, 2019

Scott Morrison’s arrogant dodging of questions is spreading through his Department - nobody is prepared to reveal the truth on the PM’s attempt to get a White House invitation for Brian Houston. #righttoknow #estimates pic.twitter.com/uBAIRG5ZZR

— Senator Penny Wong (@SenatorWong) October 21, 2019

Australian PM Scott Morrison gets a slap in the face from regional News Corp masthead

The Daily Examiner, 29 August 2019: 

OUR SAY 
BILL NORTH 
Editor 

Be sure to verify statements before you take them with a grain of salt – even when they’re delivered by our most trustworthy Prime Minister. It’s probably not a profound statement given today’s world leaders and proliferation of fake news. 

But once upon a time, you could trust your national leader to rise above the spin. Scott Morrison’s response to the GetUp campaign during the federal election – which succeeded in ousting colleague Tony Abbott, if little else – was to smear the activist group with nothing short of propoganda. 

He has accused GetUp of bullying and misogyny – two words more apt for describing some of the far-right politicians who were targeted not because of their political allegiance, but because they actively blocked progress on environmental and humanitarian issues that, in the eyes of GetUp, shouldn’t be political footballs. 

As an observant member of the media with no political allegiance, but an environmentally conscious soul, I was on the GetUp mailing list. 

In this age of ruthless political tactics, GetUp’s consistency to their cause using fact-based evidence in an articulate, respectful and considered tone gave them far more credibility in my mind than any political party. 

If all you know about GetUp is how they’ve been portrayed in the media, then please read a couple of their releases, before jumping on the bandwagon. 

You might not agree with their philosophies, but they do play clean and fair.

Australian mainstream media learns another lesson as to why racism is bad policy

BuzzFeed News, 13 June 2019:

Channel Seven has failed in its bid to strike out a lawsuit brought by a group of Aboriginal people who say they were defamed during a now infamous panel discussion on breakfast TV show Sunrise about adopting Indigenous children.

Yolngu woman Kathy Mununggurr and 14 others from the remote community of Yirrkala, including adults and children, are suing the TV network after they were depicted in blurred overlay footage that played during the segment in March 2018.

In the discussion, hosted by Samantha Armytage, commentator Prue Macsween said of the Stolen Generations that “we need to do it again, perhaps”, and then-radio host Ben Davis said Aboriginal kids are getting “abused” and “damaged”.

The comments made by the all-white panel provoked protests outside the Sunrise studio in Sydney's CBD.

Mununggurr and the adults suing argue they were identifiable in the footage and that by playing it during the discussion Sunrise had suggested they abused, assaulted or neglected children, were incapable of protecting their children, and were members of a dysfunctional community.

The children suing say the program defamed them by suggesting they had been raped and assaulted, and were so vulnerable to danger that they should be removed from their families.

The group is also suing for breach of confidence and breach of privacy, as well as misleading and deceptive conduct and unconscionable conduct under the Australian Consumer Law.

The TV network tried to strike out all aspects of the lawsuit in a Federal Court hearing on Wednesday afternoon, but was slapped down by Justice Steven Rares, who said all the issues could and should be argued at trial…..

"This is about an Aboriginal community. They’re all very close. The neighbours know each other, they all know each other," the judge said.

"You’ve got a whole community up there, most of whom will be able to recognise each other, obviously some of whom who watch Sunrise, or whatever the show is called."…...

Rares accepted there was an argument that Davis and the radio station 4BC were being promoted during the segment, but was less convinced when it came to Macsween.

“To me she’s a nobody. I’ve never heard of her and I’ve got no idea what contribution she possibly could have made to the program,” he said.

Nonetheless Rares sided with Catanzariti and declined to strike out the claim.

Seven's attempts to strike out the remaining claims of breach of confidence, breach of privacy and unconscionable conduct were similarly rejected.

Seven was ordered to pay the costs of the hearing.

PRESS FREEDOM IN AUSTRALIA: Letting The Light In - Part Two

The Canberra Times, 6 June 2018:

2GB radio host Ben Fordham also revealed this week that he has been contacted by the Department of Home Affairs about his reporting, with the department investigating how he obtained "highly confidential" information about asylum seeker vessels.

Fordham said the department was seeking his co-operation with the probe, which could become a criminal investigation and "potentially" involve a police raid.

https://youtu.be/Tc8Sn6gF6KQ

The original radio broadcast……

2GB Radio, Sydney Live with Ben Fordham, 3 June 2019:

The Department of Home Affairs is investigating reports from Sri Lanka that up to six boats could have recently attempted journeys to Australia.

Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton admitted last week there could be a wave of illegal vessels headed for Australia after 20 Sri Lankan asylum seekers were sent back.

A senior source in Home Affairs has told Ben Fordham Mr Dutton is currently in Sri Lanka because “there could be up to six boats in play”.

Out of the six believed to be headed for Australia, some may have been disrupted.

Ben says the recent wave of illegal boats could be because of the recent federal election.

“Is there a chance that the people smugglers were able to flog seats on boats… because they thought Labor was going to win the election?”

Full original segment audio can be accessed here.

Further reading

North Coast Voices, 9 June 2019, PRESS FREEDOM IN AUSTRALIA: Letting The Light In - Part One

North Coast Voices,  June 2019, On 4 June 2019 federal police raided home of Newscorp journalist over story detailing an alleged government proposal to spy on Australians

Did ABC Radio bow to pressure from the Adani Group?

One of the worst kept secrets in Australia is that the multinational Adani mining group, for reasons known only to its company board in India, wants to build a mine in the Galilee Basin but has no intention of building a financially viable mine.

And Adani really dislikes the media mentioning this fact......

ABC, Media Watch, transcript excerpt, 3 June 2019:

But now let’s come back closer to home to Adani, whose controversial Carmichael mine in Queensland’s Galilee Basin gets ever closer to construction, despite this scathing piece in The Sydney Morning Herald by Bloomberg columnist David Fickling:

The numbers on Adani simply don't add up

Comparable projects like Glencore's Wandoan have been mothballed for years.

- The Sydney Morning Herald, 24 May, 2019

Fickling’s op-ed 10 days ago argued that the Adani mine may never be built — even if it does get final approval — because it’s currently much cheaper to buy coal than dig it out of a brand-new coal mine.

And over at ABC Radio, Saturday AM thought that was worth a story.

But after being worked on by Isobel Roe, a young award-winning journalist in Brisbane, it never made it to air.

So, why was that? Well, Media Watch can reveal that Adani complained to the ABC in advance. And the story was spiked.

So how did this all unfold?

Bloomberg has confirmed to Media Watch that David Fickling was interviewed by the ABC on the afternoon of Friday, 24th of May.

And just over an hour later, at 4.20pm, Adani say Roe contacted them for comment.

And not long after that, at 5.50pm, the producer of Saturday AM, Thomas Oriti, told ABC staff he was killing the story.

Now, newsrooms at the ABC are open plan and not very private and four witnesses tell Media Watch that Oriti made it clear Adani had complained.

Indeed, one claims he told Roe:

‘Sorry. It’s nothing to do with you, but we’re not going to be able to run this’.

- Phone interview, ABC staffer, 31 May, 2019

While another claims he said:

‘It’s not my decision, it’s come from on high.’

- Phone interview, ABC staffer, 31 May, 2019

The ABC denies this and maintains his decision was taken entirely on editorial merit, because the story didn’t stack up.

So what can we be sure of?

Well, there’s no doubt Adani did complain, both to the reporter when she rang and, shortly after, to her bosses. A company spokesperson told us:

… we raised concerns with ABC management when approached to comment on a story that contained inaccuracies and was potentially biased ...

- Email, Adani spokesperson, 31 May, 2019

Adani says it told the reporter she should talk to an analyst more friendly to the mining sector.

And when she asked them to suggest someone, Adani’s PR team cracked it and went over her head to ABC management:

Adani complained that it was not reasonable that the onus for ensuring that ABC news coverage was fair and balanced should fall back onto the company and not onto the ABC’s well-resourced newsrooms.

- Email, Adani spokesperson, 31 May, 2019

A key feature of Adani’s complaint was that the ABC had not given it enough time to respond.

But in fact by Friday afternoon Fickling’s work had been up for more than 36 hours. 

And Adani was able to send a statement to the ABC almost immediately.

So, who at the ABC dealt with the company’s complaint?

We’re told Adani went straight to the top — ABC News boss Gaven Morris — who we understand is the person they normally contact.

So to clarify what happened, we asked Morris a series of questions, which included:

Did Adani contact you last Friday afternoon to complain about the story?

What was the nature of the complaint, and how did you respond?

Why was the story pulled, given that it had been commissioned for Saturday AM only hours beforehand?

Was the decision to pull the story taken after Adani’s complaint?

Why was this complaint handled personally by you?

- Email, Media Watch to Gaven Morris, 31 May, 2019

We did not get a response from Gaven Morris or answers to most of those questions.

Instead, an ABC spokesperson told us:

There was no complaint.

- Email, ABC spokesperson, 31 May, 2019

Which is remarkable, because Adani says there was…..

Full transcript here.

BACKGROUND

“The numbers on Adani simply don't add up”, The Sydney Morning Herald, 24 May 2019 at https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/the-numbers-on-adani-simply-don-t-add-up-20190524-p51qoy.html.

On 4 June 2019 federal police raided home of Newscorp journalist over story detailing an alleged government proposal to spy on Australians

It seems that someone in the Morrison Government may have laid a complaint........

Braidwood Times, 4 June 2019:

Federal police have raided the home of a journalist over a 2018 story detailing an alleged government proposal to spy on Australians.

Australian Federal Police officers produced a warrant to search the home, computer and mobile phone of Canberra-based News Corp Australia journalist Annika Smethurst, The Daily Telegraph reports.

The story in question had included images of letters between the heads of the Home Affairs and Defence departments, discussing potential new powers for the Australian Signals Directorate (ASD).

The powers would have allowed the ASD's cyber sleuths to monitor Australian citizens and businesses on home soil, rather than being limited to gathering intelligence on foreigners, the story said.

The AFP said the raid is in relation to "alleged unauthorised disclosure of national security information" and that no arrests are expected on Tuesday.

"Police will allege the unauthorised disclosure of these specific documents undermines Australia's national security," the agency said in a statement…...

BACKGROUND

Sunday Tasmanian, 6 May 2018, p.13:

The Federal Government has “war-gamed” scenarios where our cyber spy agency needed to be given the power to investigate Australian citizens.

Last week the Sunday Tasmanian revealed a secret plan to increase the Australian Signals Directorate’s powers to allow them to spy on Aussies.

Department bosses claimed there was “no proposal to ­increase the ASD’s powers to collect intelligence on Australians”. But letters between Home Affairs secretary Mike Pezzullo and Defence Secretary Greg Moriarty reveal the departments of Home ­Affairs and Defence allocated staff to war game a raft of scenarios where the ASD would need to spy on Australians.

The list of scenarios were compiled in two attachments and sent to the heads of both departments under the headline “scenarios proposed by Home Affairs”.

The document explains how ASD could be used to ­disrupt “onshore and offshore online threats” such as “disrupting child exploitation networks and terrorist networks” and “illicit drug importation, money laundering and serious crimes”.

Last week’s Sunday Tasmanian exclusive has prompted calls for MPs to have greater oversight of Australia’s intelligence agencies…..

Sunday Telegraph, 29 April 2018, p.5:

Australia’s intelligence watchdog has warned the Australian Signals Directorate against any moves that would change the agency’s focus “to people and organisations ­inside Australia” instead of focusing on activities overseas.

The veiled warning came in March during a review into new laws which established the ASD as a statutory body.

In her submission, Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security (IGIS) Margaret Stone, a former Federal Court judge, said under the current laws ASD is not permitted to access digital information ­located inside Australia.

“Accessing data located inside Australia is properly an action that requires an ASIO or police warrant,” she said in her submission.

“Nothing in the Intelligence Services Act would allow ASD to access restricted data on a computer physically located inside Australia — even where doing so would assist in gathering intelligence or disrupting crime,” she said…..

Sunday Telegraph, 29 April 2018, p.4:

Two powerful government agencies are discussing radical new espionage powers that would see Australia’s cyber spy agency monitor Australian citizens for the first time.

Under the plan, emails, bank records and text messages of Australians could be secretly accessed by digital spies without a trace, provided the Defence and Home Affairs ministers approved.

The power grab is detailed in top secret letters between the heads of the Department of Home Affairs and Defence, seen by The Sunday Telegraph, which outline proposed new powers for Australia’s electronic spy agency — the Australian Signals Directorate (ASD).

The Sunday Telegraph can reveal the Secretary of the Department of Home Affairs Mike Pezzullo first wrote to the Defence Secretary Greg Moriarty in February outlining the plan to potentially allow government hackers to “proactively disrupt and covertly remove” onshore cyber threats by “hacking into critical infrastructure”.

Under current laws the ASD — whose mission statement is “Reveal Their Secrets — Protect Our Own” — must not conduct an activity to produce intelligence on an Australian.

Instead, the Australian Federal Police and domestic spy agency ASIO have the power to investigate Australians with a warrant and can ask ASD for technical advice if they don’t have the capabilities they need.

The Attorney-General is responsible for issuing ASIO warrants, but the agency’s operations will fall under the umbrella of Home Affairs.

Under the proposal, seen by The Sunday Telegraph, Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton and Defence Minister Marise Payne would tick off on orders allowing cyber spooks to target onshore threats without the country’s top law officer knowing.

Last month the proposal was ­compiled in a top secret ministerial submission signed by ASD boss Mike Burgess. The proposal outlines scenarios where Canberra-based cyber spies would use offensive tactics to “counter or disrupt cyber-enabled criminals both onshore and offshore”.

“The Department of Home Affairs advises that it is briefing the Minister for Home Affairs to write to you (Ms Payne) seeking your support for a further tranche of legislative reform to enable ASD to better support a range of Home Affairs priorities.” 

But The Sunday Telegraph understands Mr Dutton has not written to Minister Payne and no formal proposal for leglslative amendments have been presented to Government.

“The Australian Signals Directorate has not prepared ministerial advice seeking permissions to allow ASD to counter or disrupt cyber-enabled criminals onshore,” a spokesman for Ms Payne said.

An intelligence source said such ­reforms would allow cyber spies to ­secretly access digital information on Australians without detection, including financial transactions, health data and phone records.

“It would give the most powerful cyber spies the power to turn on its own citizens,” the source said.

The letter also details a proposal for coercive “step-in” powers, meaning the intelligence agency could force government agencies and ­private businesses to “comply with security measures”.

The intelligence source said ASD could be able to compel companies and government agencies to hand over data or security information…… [my yellow highlighting]

The Guardian, 25 January 2018:

Proposed changes to Australia’s national security laws that could see journalists and whistleblowers jailed for up to 20 years will “criminalise” reporting and undermine the media’s ability to act in the public interest, the nation’s major news outlets have warned. 

In a joint submission, 14 major media outlets including the ABC, Fairfax Media and News Corp said sweeping changes to national security laws proposed by the federal government would place journalists at “significant risk of jail time” for doing their jobs.

The reforms, tabled just hours after marriage equality became law in December, would increase tenfold the maximum penalty for anyone who communicates or “deals with” information which could potentially “cause harm to Australia’s interests,” where that information is obtained via a government official without authorisation.

So who do you trust in the Australian media landscape in 2018?

On 9 October 2018 Essential Research released the results of survey questions concerning trust in the media.

Once again public broadcasters, ABC and SBS, were the clear winners across all categories in which they were listed.

Q. How much trust do you have in what you read or hear in the following media?

	Total a lot /some trust		A lot of trust	Some trust	Not much trust	No trust at all	Don’t know	Don’t use	% change		Total a lot /some Oct 17
ABC TV news and current affairs	62%		19%	43%	14%	9%	5%	10%	-1		63%
SBS TV news and current affairs	61%		18%	43%	14%	6%	5%	15%	–		61%
ABC radio news and current affairs	57%		17%	40%	17%	8%	4%	14%	-1		58%
Commercial TV news and current affairs	48%		8%	40%	29%	12%	5%	7%	+3		45%
News and opinion in local newspapers	47%		6%	41%	27%	9%	4%	13%	+3		44%
ABC radio talkback programs	44%		8%	36%	22%	10%	5%	20%	–		44%
News and opinion in daily newspapers	44%		6%	38%	28%	10%	5%	12%	+2		42%
Commercial radio news and current affairs	44%		5%	39%	28%	11%	5%	13%	+3		41%
News and opinion websites	39%		4%	35%	32%	11%	5%	13%	-1		40%
Commercial radio talkback programs	35%		4%	31%	29%	14%	5%	18%	–		35%
Internet blogs	17%		2%	15%	34%	22%	6%	20%	-3		20%

Overall, there has been little change in trust in media since this question was asked 12 months ago.

The most trusted media were ABC TV news and current affairs (62% a lot/some trust), SBS TV news and current affairs (61%) and ABC radio news and current affairs (57%).

The least trusted were internet blogs (17%) and commercial radio talkback programs (35%).

Q. How much trust do you have in what you read in the following newspapers and news websites?

	Total a lot /some trust		A lot of trust	Some trust	Not much trust	No trust at all	Don’t know
ABC news websites	69%		21%	48%	16%	9%	6%
The Australian	59%		12%	47%	22%	11%	9%
The Guardian Australia website	55%		10%	45%	23%	11%	12%
News.com.au	55%		10%	45%	27%	12%	7%
Sydney Morning Herald	54%		13%	41%	25%	11%	10%
The Age	53%		9%	44%	24%	13%	11%
Nine.com.au	53%		8%	45%	27%	13%	6%
The Telegraph	49%		10%	39%	26%	14%	11%
Herald Sun	46%		8%	38%	27%	15%	11%
Yahoo 7 News website	45%		6%	39%	29%	16%	9%
Courier Mail	44%		6%	38%	30%	15%	13%
Daily Mail website	39%		6%	33%	31%	21%	10%

* Note : Percentages based only on respondents who had read/used each newspaper/website

Overall, among those who have read or used them, the most trusted news sources were the ABC news websites (69%), The Australian (59%), The Guardian Australia (55%) and news.com.au (55%).

The least trusted were The Daily Mail (39%) and The Courier Mail (44%).

Q. Overall, do you think the news reporting and comment on the ABC is independent and unbiased?

	Total		Vote Labor	Vote Lib/Nat	Vote Greens	Vote other
Yes	40%		50%	40%	52%	28%
No	34%		24%	43%	23%	50%
Don’t know	26%		25%	17%	25%	22%

40% think that the news reporting and comment on the ABC is independent and unbiased and 34% think it isn’t.

Those most likely to think the ABC is not independent and unbiased were LNP voters (43%), other party voters (50%) and aged 55+ (40%).

As for the general public's attitude to the recent attacks on ABC independence - 36% of survey respondents thought that the Government has too much influence over the ABC, 16% think they have not enough influence, 17% think they have about the right level of influence and 31& did not know.