Aunty Contributes To The Angst

The ABC is held up by many as the gold standard of journalism in Australia with millions of Australians having the unwavering belief that anything out of the mouth of Aunty must be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.  But in reality, is ABC reporting on forestry issues in Tasmania objective, factual journalism, or are the articles simply post-truth opinion pieces from the ideologically aligned "journalists"?

In the interests of objective journalism and full disclosure, should journalists have to alert the reader to any personal affiliations to, or sympathies towards organisations that they are ideologically aligned to?  One would certainly think so.

According to the ABC editorial policy on accuracy,

The ABC has a statutory duty to ensure that the gathering and presentation of news and information is accurate according to the recognised standards of objective journalism. Credibility depends heavily on factual accuracy;  and

The ABC has a requirement to;

2.1 Make reasonable efforts to ensure that material facts are accurate and presented in context.

2.2 Do not present factual content in a way that will materially mislead the audience. In some cases, this may require appropriate labels or other explanatory information.

In light of these "standards", it is worth reviewing some recent ABC news articles on Tasmanian forestry.

The first article we'll look at was not news at all but a "story" created by a journalist. 

The article author discovered that two small areas of Future Potential Production Forest (FPPF) land were located near the new tourism attraction the Three Capes Track and seized upon this "fact" and then went out to source comment about logging in these areas and the potential impact on tourism.

This "newsworthy" discovery initially led to an audio story which was aired on ABC's The World Today program the day before the online news article.

The original online article (which has now been modified) showed a screenshot from the Tasmanian Government's List Map service similar to the one pictured below.

Screen shot of the Tasman Peninsula from Tasmanian government List Map service. 

FPPF areas are marked with diagonal lines.

 



The story only listed the source of the picture as "supplied" when it was clearly just a screenshot from the journalist's computer. At least the caption could have read "supplied by the author from the Tasmanian List Map Service".  By stating that the image was "supplied" it gives the readers an impression that it was supplied by someone outside of the ABC in an attempt to give the image credibility.

The article then went on to interview tourism operators and anti-forestry campaigners with a clear thread that timber harvesting in these areas would have a dire impact on tourism operations - not only in the Three Capes area but Statewide.

To the unsuspecting reader, this is a story about a government-inspired, rapacious forest industry pushing into national parks and pristine wilderness areas.

Following a complaint to the ABC that the article was intentionally misleading and not in accordance with their editorial policy on accuracy, the article was changed and used the picture below.  A link to a larger picture on the ABC website is here.   As you can see, by using satellite imagery as opposed to a topographic map background, it is quite evident that the areas in question are surrounded by a mosaic of harvesting operations and re-growth forests - some only a few hundred metres away from where thousands of tourists have walked the Three Capes Track already without any knowledge of the forestry operations or any impact on tourism.

The picture caption was also changed from "supplied" to Three Capes area, showing track (red), FPPF and historically logged clearings (Supplied: Tasmanian Government)

Certainly paints a different picture.

The article also fails to mention a number of critical points, namely;

1.   That the Three Capes Track is contained wholly within the Tasman National Park and under state legislation, no timber harvesting can occur within national parks.

2.   The FPPF land cannot be accessed for timber harvesting under state legislation until at least 2020.

3.   Not all the FPPF land will be used for timber harvesting as a number of  FPPF areas do not have harvestable timber in them.

4.   Prior to 2013, these areas of FPPF land were largely state forests available for timber harvesting.

5.   Thousands of people have walked the track to date and not one person has raised the issue of adjacent forestry operations.  According to this article,  94 per cent of walkers rated the walk as one of the best things they had done in their life or the past 12 months.

So in the end,  did this "news" story comply with the ABC's editorial policy on accuracy, or was it a thinly veiled attempt to mislead an unknowing public into an anti-forestry position? 

I'll let you decide.

Mention the word "forestry" in Tasmania and you will get a range of reactions from very supportive comments to a diatribe of hate-filled insults - thus is the nature of the forestry debate in Tassie and has been for the past 30 odd years. 

But does it have to be this way?

Many opinions on both sides of the debate have been formed out of ignorance and from my experience; the opposing sides are sometimes really not that far apart - only separated by a difference of opinion based on a lack of knowledge of the real facts.  Obviously, there will be ideological extremes at both ends of the spectrum that will never reconcile but the injection of some truth into the debate may slowly soften those long-held positions over time.

In the world of the 24/7 news cycle, it is clear that our major media outlets simply do not have the time or resources to fully investigate a story, instead relying on a cabal of usual suspects with vested interests to provide opinion and in some cases simply regurgitating media releases without fact-checking.  This is not journalism and this approach has and continues to cause social harm in our communities.

It is very important to note that opinion, even contextual opinion is not fact yet many in our society equate what is written in modern media to be factual when in many cases it isn't.   The lack of robust fact-checking, the insertion of opinion in what is meant to be factual reporting, and the large number of information outlets only contribute to the confusion surrounding major issues.  Forestry in Tasmania is a case in point.

A recent survey by Deloitte Australia showed that 18% of Australians now source their news directly from social media and this behaviour is higher amongst Millennials. 

A search on Facebook for "Forestry Tasmania" brings up a myriad of results from the actual GBE providing information to the public to various environment groups, politicians and other interested parties in this complex subject.  So many "opinions" -  no wonder the public gets confused.  Whilst some may argue that this blog simply adds to this white noise, I hope that over time this blog will change the attitudes of many and that is the simple aim.

Forestry has been in the news a lot these past few weeks following the Liberal Government's announcements on forestry.  A review of the many stories published on the issue shows a very diverse range of opinion but a common thread in many of the stories are that facts and contextual information were missing, giving those viewing the article a completely different view of what the facts actually were.  This opinion is then "Chinese whispered" into the community until what comes out over dinner, a weekend BBQ or at the footy is so removed from the truth it is scary and only contributes to the vicious cycle of untruths that have been harming our communities for decades.

This blog will discuss stories about forestry in Tasmania that are published across a range of media and critically assess these stories. This assessment will not just consider whether the story is factually correct but also if there is missing contextual information which would give the reader/viewer/listener a misleading view compared to if the fuller/true story was reported. 

It is time to bring the narrative on forestry silenced by omission into the public debate.