The very first thing you are taught is to report on issues, not commentate. I know we’ve had lots of discussions in the past. Too many journalists think they are commentators or participants now as opposed to just being a reporter. But these are digital producers. You are hiring these people. Do they have degrees? Are they given training in journalism? Do they understand what journalistic ethics are? The fact that this was just an ad for BDS would suggest that they are either not up to the job or they don’t understand the basics of what a reporter is there to do or what the charter of the ABC is.
Senator HUGHES: I want to come to digital reporter Amal Wehbe, who put a specific post up on the BDS movement. I’m sure I don’t need to describe what that is to anybody else. It’s clearly—
Senator CADELL: They’ll have to google it.
Senator HUGHES: It is boycott, divestment and sanctions. It is obviously a Palestinian-led movement to encourage and force individuals and companies to dissociate themselves with Israel through economic attrition. This video explained the BDS movement and why people are on board with it. There was no challenge to it. There was no alternative opinion or critique of the movement. Is that appropriate on TikTok?
Mr Anderson : Senator, a story on the BDS movement is a legitimate story. When that particular story came to our attention, we took a look at it. We decided that it didn’t meet our standards in that it didn’t have an alternative perspective that was in the story.
Senator HUGHES: That is a big problem, because it didn’t have anything.
Mr Anderson : Certainly. I am admitting that it wasn’t good enough to begin with. That story then was not made public. It was hidden. The story was updated to provide that perspective and then made public again.
Senator HUGHES: We are in the middle of a conflict in the Middle East. Israel was attacked on 7 October yet we’ve still got ABC producers thinking it is appropriate to fundamentally promote activist and anti-Semitic propaganda. I will come to specific guidelines a bit later on regarding the Israel-Gaza situation. Is it the view—I’m not asking you personally, because I think you would not be a supporter—particularly within some of these elements, that BDS is a legitimate thing to promote? Ant-Semitism is okay to promote, particularly to a vulnerable audience?
Mr Anderson : Senator, our position is not to promote these things. I think the spread of the BDS movement is a legitimate story for the ABC to do on any platform. It was originally intended as a short profile of one person who had become part of the movement. However, the ABC felt that it did require more context. It was updated to include that context as well as the different perspective.
Senator HUGHES: I saw both of them. Has there ever been an instance where there was a pro-Israel story and it had to be pulled down so that some other context could be provided? Is it always only pro-Palestinian that has now had to be pulled down because it was anti-Semitic?
Mr Anderson : I am not seeing a trend—I can throw to Mr Fang, who is editorial director—that anything has needed to be updated from one perspective or the other.
Senator HUGHES: This did.
Mr Anderson : Yes. It needed to be updated and improved. I might add—
Senator HUGHES: I did a journalism degree, so I don’t feel I’m unfamiliar with this space.
Senator HENDERSON: So did I.
Senator HUGHES: The very first thing you are taught is to report on issues, not commentate. I know we’ve had lots of discussions in the past. Too many journalists think they are commentators or participants now as opposed to just being a reporter. But these are digital producers. You are hiring these people. Do they have degrees? Are they given training in journalism? Do they understand what journalistic ethics are? The fact that this was just an ad for BDS would suggest that they are either not up to the job or they don’t understand the basics of what a reporter is there to do or what the charter of the ABC is.
CHAIR: You could say the same about Sky, I would say.
Senator HUGHES: No. Sky is a private company. Sky is not funded by the Australian taxpayer.
CHAIR: You are talking about journalists, though. You are making a point about journalists.
Senator HUGHES: I am sorry. No, Chair, I have the call. I am sorry. These are journalists whose salary is derived from Australian taxpayers, yet they do not seem to understand the charter of the ABC or basic journalistic standards.
Senator HENDERSON: And the ABC Act and the statutory obligations under the act.
Mr Anderson : Senator, I hear your question. I think our journalists operate in good faith. I think to suggest that any individual has deliberately done this is unfair. This reporter copped a lot of flak and a lot of pile-on that was unfair and attacked.
Senator HUGHES: I don’t think it was unfair.
Mr Anderson : I am not defending the original story. I am saying that the original story was lacking.
Senator HUGHES: Yes.
Mr Anderson : I would say that the processes by which that story was published didn’t work and failed the journalist with regard to what else it needed. I am saying that I wouldn’t rush to the journalist in question.
Senator HUGHES: But this isn’t the first time we’ve been here. This isn’t our first rodeo of a problem with something that has gone to air where a journalist has said or put their view out that hasn’t had to be walked back, reviewed and looked at. This is just an ongoing issue. As I said, I feel sorry for you. Maybe insert it in a copy of Das Kapital and someone will read it. Clearly they are not reading the guidelines they are supposed to be adhering to.
Mr Anderson : Senator, everybody gets training. Everybody receives editorial training. We update that training particularly when we’ve had errors that have needed to be corrected or clarified. We incorporate that into the training so people understand where we’ve got it wrong when we’ve gone to publish something. I think we do correct and clarify and put our hand up for that and then put an editor’s note on it so that in time people can go back and look and say, ‘This was originally published but needed more work.’ There was one attached to this story. Mr Fang, do you have any more to add?
Mr Fang : If I can help provide some additional information. As you pointed out, we do have a series of editorial policies and guidelines. There are 13 editorial standards. We hold very dearly to those standards and those guidelines. They cover things like impartiality, accuracy and independence that make good journalism. With regard to the Israel-Gaza conflict—
Senator HUGHES: I’m going to come to that a bit later. I’ve got a lot of specific questions there.
Mr Fang : If I may, since the start of the conflict, we’ve had about 3,000 complaints raised. There have been about 1,300 issues in those complaints. About 58 per cent of those complaints largely have been about impartiality and bias. About 58 per cent of those complaints have alleged that we have been pro-Israeli or anti-Palestinian, and about 41 or 42 per cent have been running the other way. This is a really complex story. It is a very fast-moving story. We are always trying to meet our editorial policies and our standards. We are always looking to update stories and fix stories where we don’t come up to the mark straightaway.
Senator HUGHES: Chair, I do have a block that I would like to do on Israel-Gaza, but it’s moving along. If it is easier to pass the call around, come back to me.
CHAIR: Thanks.